-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why reject atheism?
- Thread starter beenherebeforeagain
- Start date
Do human beings have intrinsic value under atheism (as opposed to utilitarian value)?
Not necessarily. I’m sure there are atheists on either side of that issue.
I believe that human beings have intrinsic value, but this is because I’m a humanist, not because I’m an atheist.
Fair enough.Not sure. Winging it
There are plenty of things that inform my views about the things you’re asking about, but atheism isn’t one of them.
For me, my actual worldview and philosophy is rooted in terms of skepticism, humanism, and freethought. I’m an atheist because of these (because of the skepticism, mainly), but this is really just one small implication. If it weren’t for all of the theists trying to push theism on me in different ways, the fact that I find theistic claims unbelievable would be as irrelevant to my day-to-day life as the fact that I think that manticores are biologically impossible.
Everyone who’s put some though into things generally ends up finding some source of meaning and purpose. For theists, it’s often - but not universally - the case that their meaning and purpose involves their god(s). For atheists, that meaning and purpose is going to be drawn from something other than gods. That’s all.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's logically impossible, and semantically dishonest to "include no gods" in any conceptual model of existence. One either accepts the possibility, or rejects the possibility, of the existence of some sort of deity. The acceptance of this possibility is labeled theism, while the rejection of it is labeled atheism. Therefor atheism is not "non-belief". It's a determined rejection of deistic possibility.
What one does "not include" in their view of reality is infinite, and meaningless. Atheism is defined by what one deliberately and determinedly REJECTS. Specifically the possibility that gods exist.
This is irrational gibberish, sorry. First of all it's not about what one does or does not "believe". Some people believe the pope killed Kennedy. Some don't. But we all acknowledge that Kennedy is dead. Some people believe that "God" is the god of the Bible, and many do not. Yet most believe that some sort of god, whether they can define it or not, exists. These people are called theists. Those who have rejected this possibility are called "atheists". Atheism isn't about what anyone "believes" or doesn't believe about gods. It's about rejecting the ideological possibility of any gods.
Last edited:
These strawmen have been resolved about ten thousand times already, haven't they?
My point remains.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Why reject atheism?
What advantage does Atheism have ?
Atheists will say, we don't believe in God, But yet atheists are keeping at lease 70% of the laws that were set down by God.
So why not just keep the other 30% ?
Therefore no matter what law or laws Atheism would want, they would still in some way or another would be base off the laws of God.
Let's say you have it where people can not kill another person.
That's a God base laws "Thou shalt not kill"
Let's say you have it where it's not allowed to steal, That's a God base law, "Thou shalt not steal"
So whatever law or rule that Atheism can come up with will be base off in some form or another off God's law.
Atheism could say, well then we won't have any laws, Now who exactly would want to live in a lawless Society, Where people could and will kill you, without any consequences of their actions.
People would break into your house and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Atheism could say, I will have a gun that will stop them, Not if your right of ownership of having a gun, is taking away by Liberal democrats.
Remember Liberal democrats wants to eliminate your 2nd amendment right. To own a gun, to protect yourself with. Of course those Liberal democrats politicians will have guns to protect themselves with.
All the while taking away your right to protect yourself and your family with.
Look at Bernie Sanders as a good example, he went down in FL protesting against guns with those kids, All the while his body guards have guns on themselves.
What's up with all that. Go Figure
But anyway, What Advantage does Atheism have to offer.
Outside of becoming a lawless Society of people ?
What advantage does Atheism have ?
Atheists will say, we don't believe in God, But yet atheists are keeping at lease 70% of the laws that were set down by God.
So why not just keep the other 30% ?
Therefore no matter what law or laws Atheism would want, they would still in some way or another would be base off the laws of God.
Let's say you have it where people can not kill another person.
That's a God base laws "Thou shalt not kill"
Let's say you have it where it's not allowed to steal, That's a God base law, "Thou shalt not steal"
So whatever law or rule that Atheism can come up with will be base off in some form or another off God's law.
Atheism could say, well then we won't have any laws, Now who exactly would want to live in a lawless Society, Where people could and will kill you, without any consequences of their actions.
People would break into your house and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Atheism could say, I will have a gun that will stop them, Not if your right of ownership of having a gun, is taking away by Liberal democrats.
Remember Liberal democrats wants to eliminate your 2nd amendment right. To own a gun, to protect yourself with. Of course those Liberal democrats politicians will have guns to protect themselves with.
All the while taking away your right to protect yourself and your family with.
Look at Bernie Sanders as a good example, he went down in FL protesting against guns with those kids, All the while his body guards have guns on themselves.
What's up with all that. Go Figure
But anyway, What Advantage does Atheism have to offer.
Outside of becoming a lawless Society of people ?
Last edited:
I understand that on an individual level there is purpose and meaning enough. But what about human civilization as a whole over millenia upon millenia? Is there a set of aims there?Fair enough.
There are plenty of things that inform my views about the things you’re asking about, but atheism isn’t one of them.
For me, my actual worldview and philosophy is rooted in terms of skepticism, humanism, and freethought. I’m an atheist because of these (because of the skepticism, mainly), but this is really just one small implication. If it weren’t for all of the theists trying to push theism on me in different ways, the fact that I find theistic claims unbelievable would be as irrelevant to my day-to-day life as the fact that I think that manticores are biologically impossible.
Everyone who’s put some though into things generally ends up finding some source of meaning and purpose. For theists, it’s often - but not universally - the case that their meaning and purpose involves their god(s). For atheists, that meaning and purpose is going to be drawn from something other than gods. That’s all.
I am not sure that there is a way to distinguish between the two. Do you want to offer a criterium for that purpose?
Umm. Bible's laws are bad copy paste job from Babylonia law books, and Western laws come from Rome which originated in its Pagan past. Duh.
Is it an axiom, or is there a justification?
Intrinsic value :- Value based on properties that inherently exist in that object
Extrinsic value :- Value based on the object's utility to another.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
God's laws was way before Babylonia laws came to be, at least about 2000 years.
As for Rome, God's laws were at least 2500 years before Rome came to be.
Oh really, you say Western laws come from Rome, But yet, we find the ten commandments law of God's in and around in the Western society. Go Figure
The people who came here back, came and establish God's ten commandments law. This is why you will find in the Western society, God's ten commandment law.
By the way, when people came here, the only book they had, to learn to read and write and spell words by was the bible, they didn't have schools back then, so they would learn to read and write and spell words form the bible.
Last edited:
Umm no in each case.
OT laws are from 900 BCE, while Babylonian laws are >2000 BCE as established by historians. Try again.
Roman laws did not come from Jewish laws. They came from Greeks, and Greeks developed them independently. Heard of Plato, Aristotle, themistocles? Ring any bells? Ding Ding?
US laws come from British laws that are based on turn on Rome. There is not a single non-ceremonial law in the OT with modern usage that can't be found thousands of years before in Egypt and Babylonian law codes.
This is nonsense, of course. Not accepting that an assertion is true doesn’t automatically mean accepting the opposite assertion.
“I’m not convinced you had cereal for breakfast” does not imply “I’m convinced that you didn’t have cereal for breakfast.”
This is even more the case with assertions about gods, since they’re so often logically incoherent. Responding to an assertion with, effectively, “I can’t render any judgement because I can’t understand what you’re trying to say” is certainly not a rejection.
And rejecting an argument isn’t the same as rejecting its conclusion.
Well, no. Atheism is just the umbrella term we use to cover anyone who is not a theist. That’s it.
For whatever reason, belief in god is important enough in our societies that we have a term for someone who doesn’t do it. Atheism is like non-smoking or vegetarianism that way.
Meaningless to you... and therefore can’t be meaningful to anyone else?
No, it isn’t. I’m not sure what I can say to convince you, because I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
Since you seem to assume that rejecting the possibility of something doesn’t entail believing that it doesn’t exist, I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I would consider those two things to be equivalent.
I am not sure that there is a difference, but if there is, then I assume I would say that the second is the one that we know to exist.
Every human civilization that has ever existed has been made up of individuals.
And plenty of societies have atheists in them right now. Secular society - i.e. ones where religion is irrelevant to the state, even if individuals in the society might be personally religious - is very common. If you want to see what a society without gods looks like, there are plenty of examples out there.
I would say self-consciousness of a being as an experiencing being in the world is the property that makes them have inherent value.
For me, I start axiomatically with “I value myself” and then get rather easily from there to “I should value others.”
There are other approaches to the question; an ethicist would probably do a better job of laying them out.
So there is nothing more to a human civilization than the aggregate of individuals living and dying to the best of their ability?